Volck v. Muzio
529 A.2d 177, 1987 Conn. LEXIS 937, 204 Conn. 507 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An administrative suspension of a driver's license for refusing a chemical sobriety test is valid if the four statutory criteria for suspension are met, even if the police fail to strictly comply with other procedural requirements of the implied consent statute, such as the timing of the arrest or witness endorsement requirements for the refusal report.
Facts:
- On June 9, 1984, at 1:45 a.m., Officer David Bailey observed Raymond A. Volck in the driver's seat of his automobile with the motor running.
- The officer detected a strong odor of alcohol on Volck's breath.
- When Volck stepped out of the car, he fell against the officer and could not stand without support.
- Volck refused to take any chemical tests offered by the officer to determine his level of intoxication.
- Subsequent to his refusal, Officer Bailey placed Volck under arrest.
- The written police report documenting Volck's refusal was not endorsed by a third person who witnessed the refusal.
Procedural Posture:
- The commissioner of motor vehicles suspended Raymond A. Volck's operator's license after an administrative hearing.
- Volck appealed the commissioner's decision to the Superior Court, which is a state trial court of general jurisdiction.
- The Superior Court found that the police had failed to comply with the statute in two respects but nonetheless dismissed Volck's appeal and upheld the suspension.
- Volck, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of the Superior Court to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a police officer's failure to strictly adhere to the procedural requirements of the state's implied consent statute, specifically by requesting a chemical test before placing the driver under arrest and by failing to obtain a third-party witness endorsement on the refusal report, invalidate an administrative license suspension where the hearing is statutorily limited to four specific factual determinations?
Opinions:
Majority - Shea, J.
No. A police officer's failure to strictly adhere to all procedural requirements of the implied consent statute does not invalidate a license suspension, provided the four issues specified for the administrative hearing are satisfied. The court reasoned that the legislature intentionally limited the scope of the administrative license suspension hearing under General Statutes § 14-227b(d) to four specific issues: (1) whether the officer had probable cause to arrest; (2) whether the person was arrested; (3) whether the person refused the test; and (4) whether the person was operating the vehicle. The procedural defects argued by Volck—that the test refusal occurred before the arrest and that the report lacked a witness signature—are not among these four determinative issues. The court noted that the legislature created a different remedy for noncompliance with the statute's procedural advisements: inadmissibility of the refusal evidence in a subsequent criminal prosecution, not invalidation of the administrative civil suspension. Furthermore, the lack of a witness signature on the report rendered it inadmissible hearsay, but Volck waived this objection by failing to raise it at the administrative hearing.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the distinction between administrative license suspension proceedings and criminal prosecutions for driving under the influence. It establishes that the administrative process is a civil, remedial measure with a narrowly defined scope of inquiry designed for public safety, not a punitive criminal action. The ruling gives significant deference to the plain language of the statute, allowing for license suspension even with police procedural errors, so long as the core statutory findings are made. This effectively lowers the procedural burden on the state in administrative hearings compared to criminal trials, reinforcing the principle that driving is a privilege subject to reasonable regulation.
